Speaker cable

[abacus]

So how do you measure that. The spatial aspect, not tonal balance.

You cant as it doesn't exist except in the mind, however the more accurate the speakers the easier it will be to fool the brain, and this can be measured.

Bill

 

[davidf]

You cant as it doesn't exist except in the mind, however the more accurate the speakers the easier it will be to fool the brain, and this can be measured.

Bill

Ok.

 

[GSV Ethics Gradient]

You cant as it doesn't exist except in the mind, however the more accurate the speakers the easier it will be to fool the brain, and this can be measured.

Bill

Where has the information that allows us to perceive depth of soundstage been measured? It's obviously in the 1s and 0s, but I can't imagine that's easily separated from the broad brush measurements.

 

[Jasonovich]

Where has the information that allows us to perceive depth of soundstage been measured? It's obviously in the 1s and 0s, but I can't imagine that's easily separated from the broad brush measurements.

They're using a small pebble to crack a walnut.
Measurements are for guidance only, but the indoctrination has reached biblical heights! 😄

 

[Gray]

So how do you measure that. The spatial aspect, not tonal balance.

Directional mics into the right equipment could certainly measure the VERY small time differences between each speaker.

If you then measured a different system you'd get different timings - which explains the different depth / width impressions you get from different systems.

Yes, the image relies on brains to make it.
But they can only make it due to differences from the speakers - and those differences can always be measured.

AS for the way different brains respond to the differences....maybe sensitive real-time brain imaging might one day show it??

 

[davidf]

If you then measured a different system you'd get different timings - which explains the different depth / width impressions you get from different systems.

Sorry, but this sound was obviously meant to move around the soundstage in the manner it does, so it's not a case of it won't do so because of the timings of a particular speaker. I get the whole thing about the brain being fooled, but when a speaker fails to recreate the depth of another speaker, you can't measure that.

 

[abacus]

Sorry, but this sound was obviously meant to move around the soundstage in the manner it does, so it's not a case of it won't do so because of the timings of a particular speaker. I get the whole thing about the brain being fooled, but when a speaker fails to recreate the depth of another speaker, you can't measure that.

Of course you can, measure each speaker and you will see the differences between them. (That's what makes the different perceptions the brain makes) Its not rocket science.

Bill

 

[davidf]

Of course you can, measure each speaker and you will see the differences between them. (That's what makes the different perceptions the brain makes) Its not rocket science.

Bill

So what measurement relates to the perceived depth of a sound coming from two loudspeakers?

 

[GroeneLeeuw]

About 1,5 years ago I had a short listening session at somebody´s house I was introduced to through work. I was at his house by coincidence and when I saw his set. I complimented him. It looked really nice,
The room looked nice, the equipment too. It was clear this gentleman had thought things through and had spent a considerable amount of money to achieve, what I think, is a set to his taste.
He put on some music and asked if I wanted to sit on his listening seat. I did with pleasure, I was really curious.
It sounded pleasant.
But very artificial when it came to positioning instruments and specially the vocals.
It reminded me of a Dolby Prologic set I´ve had at the beginning of the 2000s with 5 speakers (Left front - Center - Right Front; Left & Right back; my speakers were all floorstanders, except the center speaker) that I sometimes used to listen to some simple stereo music(simple recordings on cd, voice(s) and simple orchestration or sometimes only a piano or guitar) played through the dvd player.
If not set to stereo, that set transformed the stereo tracks into a weird and strange, but sometimes very pleasant, surround mess.
With the more simple recordings, it was actually very nice, specially if set as background music .
But if you´d play rock music, AC/DC or Deep Purple for example, it was just horrendous, that would make a mess of the drums tracks (that I remember specifically) and the placing of the guitars and bass .

So yes, how hi-fi is it that some amps or speakers (or the combination of the 2) create all those different presentations and imaging of the music that´s being played?
What´s correct and faithful to the recording (mix and master), what´s not?

 

[Deliriumbassist]

assuming we're talking about soundstage depth as a three-dimensional perception, I would argue it could be determined through a combination of things. The main way we perceive spatial cues is through both the temporal envelope and the temporal fine structure.

The temporal envelope can be affected by dynamic compression, modulation/distortion and poor resolution of amplitude peaks, especially at low frequencies. Temporal fine structure can be affected by poor phase coherence and spectral decay, as well as aforementioned distortion. There have been studies showing that disrupting temporal elements - in particular fine structure - can significantly affect the ability to locate a sound in space.

How would this actually be condensed into a spec sheet friendly number? No idea.

 

[GSV Ethics Gradient]

Of course you can, measure each speaker and you will see the differences between them. (That's what makes the different perceptions the brain makes) Its not rocket science.

Bill

It's very definitely more than that. You've got echoes and the acoustic of the environment - and these can be symmetrical for something that's distant but placed centrally. Depth absolutely isn't just the separation between the two channels - differences between the channels are more (though not exclusively) about placing things from left to right.

(I used to think that Bridge Over Troubled Water was a slightly poor, sibilant recording. As my system got better, the size of the recording venue becomes clear, and you can easily place Garfunkel moving around as the song progresses.)

 

[Revolutions]

(I used to think that Bridge Over Troubled Water was a slightly poor, sibilant recording. As my system got better, the size of the recording venue becomes clear, and you can easily place Garfunkel moving around as the song progresses.)

Can you say more about this? What does it sound like with the voice moving around?

My setup/speaker positioning isn't ideal so I rarely hear the magic 3d soundstage. Just listened back to Bridge Over Troubled water & the main vocal is tracked centre throughout the whole song & it doesn't sound like any reverb is added, just seems to go up a db or so as it crescendos.

As it happens, this probably sums up exactly what I was thinking about commenting earlier today: without being clearly defining soundstage in a universal way, we're a long way away from being able to measure it. And with it being essentially a sensory phenomenon it will be entirely subjective from person to person.

 

[davidf]

About 1,5 years ago I had a short listening session at somebody´s house I was introduced to through work. I was at his house by coincidence and when I saw his set. I complimented him. It looked really nice,
The room looked nice, the equipment too. It was clear this gentleman had thought things through and had spent a considerable amount of money to achieve, what I think, is a set to his taste.
He put on some music and asked if I wanted to sit on his listening seat. I did with pleasure, I was really curious.
It sounded pleasant.
But very artificial when it came to positioning instruments and specially the vocals.
It reminded me of a Dolby Prologic set I´ve had at the beginning of the 2000s with 5 speakers (Left front - Center - Right Front; Left & Right back; my speakers were all floorstanders, except the center speaker) that I sometimes used to listen to some simple stereo music(simple recordings on cd, voice(s) and simple orchestration or sometimes only a piano or guitar) played through the dvd player.
If not set to stereo, that set transformed the stereo tracks into a weird and strange, but sometimes very pleasant, surround mess.
With the more simple recordings, it was actually very nice, specially if set as background music .
But if you´d play rock music, AC/DC or Deep Purple for example, it was just horrendous, that would make a mess of the drums tracks (that I remember specifically) and the placing of the guitars and bass .

So yes, how hi-fi is it that some amps or speakers (or the combination of the 2) create all those different presentations and imaging of the music that´s being played?
What´s correct and faithful to the recording (mix and master), what´s not?

Personal preferences aside, there's no rules and regulations in the industry to insure correct/accurate capture of voices/instruments when recording an album. And the same goes for mixing it. We'll never know what it was supposed to sound like, and we don't really know what it ended up sounding like.

All we can do is choose a system that pleases us, and as long as we enjoy it, nobody can say anything otherwise. As much as they'd like to.

I had someone come on once who was trying a particular album which opened with a track that had some heavy drumming, and he used that to choose his equipment. He stated that on some things, it's just a mess, but on others, you can hear the separation of the drums and where they're supposed to be. Based on the artist, I thought he was having me on, but between the two CD players we listened to, he was right. They didn't sound that different tonally, but one just presented the drums as I guess you'd expect drums to be presented.

 

[abacus]

So what measurement relates to the perceived depth of a sound coming from two loudspeakers?

Have a look at the GR-Research You Tube channel to see.

Bill

 

[GroeneLeeuw]

Personal preferences aside, there's no rules and regulations in the industry to insure correct/accurate capture of voices/instruments when recording an album. And the same goes for mixing it. We'll never know what it was supposed to sound like, and we don't really know what it ended up sounding like.

All we can do is choose a system that pleases us, and as long as we enjoy it, nobody can say anything otherwise. As much as they'd like to.

I had someone come on once who was trying a particular album which opened with a track that had some heavy drumming, and he used that to choose his equipment. He stated that on some things, it's just a mess, but on others, you can hear the separation of the drums and where they're supposed to be. Based on the artist, I thought he was having me on, but between the two CD players we listened to, he was right. They didn't sound that different tonally, but one just presented the drums as I guess you'd expect drums to be presented.

I wrote about that experience because you associated the imaging that certain amplifiers create with higher quality, dismissing others that, according to you, do not create similar effects and are therefore lower quality.

That association is, to say the least, very questionable.

That it comes down to personal taste, yes of course it is. I already said that here in the past. People do not buy equipment just using their ears.

But when it comes down to try to make universal sense of what equipment is capable, measuring is the only possible path.

The example you give of the differences that customer heard(or wants to hear) must be perfectly measurable.
We know that some equipment is more capable and compent than others.